UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANDVI MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals involving common questions are directed against the judgments and orders dated August 13, 1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kachchh at Bhuj (District Forum for short) in Complaints Nos.174 and 179 of 1992 whereby the appellants were directed to recover the charges of STD/pco provided to the respondent at Mandvi on the basis of meter readings recorded at Mandvi and to refund the excess amount of bills if the same are prepared on the basis of meter readings recorded at Bhuj.

(2.) The respondent is a franchise/licence holder of STD/pco at Mandvi. According to the respondent calls made from its STD/pco at Mandvi were recorded in the meters installed at Mandvi and Bhuj. The meter installed at Bhuj recorded more calls than the meter installed at Mandvi. The appellants, however, prepared bills on the basis of readings of meter installed at Bhuj. The respondent, therefore, filed complaints being Complaints Nos.174 and 179 of 1992 seeking direction against the appellants to prepare telephone bills as per the readings recorded in the meter installed at Mandvi. The complaint was resisted by the appellants mainly on the ground that calls made from STD/pco of the respondent at Mandvi were recorded in the meter installed at Bhuj and the bills for the calls were to be prepared on the basis of readings in the meter at Bhuj. The meter at Mandvi was installed by the respondent alongwith other equipments and this meter was installed for the convenience of the users of STD/pco of the respondent. The appellants had no control over the meter installed at Mandvi and it was possible to stop functioning of that meter or to tamper with that meter. Since the STD facility was given to the respondent from Bhuj, reading in the meter installed at Bhuj could only be taken into consideration for the purpose of preparing the bills.

(3.) The District Forum by its impugned judgments and orders held to the effect that there was no agreement between the appellants and respondent under which it was agreed to prepare bills on the basis of readings of the meter installed at Bhuj. The respondent was charging customers or users of STD/pco at Mandvi on the basis of the readings in the meter installed at Mandvi. Therefore, if the meter installed at Bhuj records more calls, it would mean that the calls which were not made were recorded. In the view of the District Forum, appellants were required to prepare the bills on the basis of the readings in the meter installed at Mandvi. In this view of the matter it gave direction to the appellants to prepare the bills on the basis of meter readings recorded at Mandvi and to refund excess amount of bills prepared on the basis of meter reading at Bhuj.